Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[loverofzion]

loverofzion,

You asked for a medical definition at 3:28 PM. You may wish to review your own comments.

I am asking why you think describing marijuana by its medical definition and not its legal one is significant in this case.

 

[Katody Matrass]

No mop at Sollecito's apartment.

Mop at Knox's cottage.

LOL, LoverofZion has multitude of misconceptions about the case.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

He probably disposed of them (and his knife) somewhere on his journey to Germany. You know - when he fled Perugia on the 3rd or 4th November.
IIRC, he positively admitted to disposing of his Nike Outbreak trainers (the ones he wore during the murder) while he was either on the way to Germany, or while he was in Germany.

On the other hand, unless Knox and Sollecito drove out of Perugia some time in the early hours or morning of 2nd November, they would have had virtually no option but to dispose of any bloody clothes etc. within Perugia.

As it happens, they could have disposed of clothing in any local dumpster with impunity, because the dumpsters were not searched. But, Filomena and the Polish girl both saw Amanda on November 1 and described what she was wearing. Clothing that matches their descriptions was found strewn across Amanda's bed, where she left it after showering and changing into clean clothes on the morning of Nov. 2. After saying for months that this clothing was missing, the police finally went back to the cottage in March 2008, recovered it from Amanda's room, where it had been the whole time, and tested it for blood with negative results.

So, if Amanda got blood on her clothes during the murder, it means she changed clothes between the time the Polish girl saw her and the time of the murder, and then disposed of that clothing.

 

[treehorn]

Apparently not, since they [ETA: Amanda and Raffaele, that is...] had to wipe off the knife and put it back in the kitchen drawer...

Raffaele's landlord kept an inventory.

Ergo Raffaele could not simply dispose of the knife and replace it with a new one without running the risk that his landlord would notice the change and alert the police.

 

[Justinian2]

Do you ever listen?
It would have had to be raf's hand on her BRA not on her back for the DNA to possilby appear. As far as we know it doesn't travel through her clohtes by his touch.

As for Rudy's print being a far more sure thing than raf's DNA, pray tell us why that is.

1) Because we know where the handprint was left. (In the murder room)
2) Because we know when the handprint was left. (After the blood came out)
3) Because we know the handprint wasn't lab contamination.
4) Because we know the handprint wasn't process contamination.
5) Because we know the handprint wasn't placed there accidentally.
6) Because we know the handprint wasn't placed there deliberately.

Bloody handprints convict.
Random LCN DNA almost never convicts by itself.

 

[loverofzion]

1) Because we know where the handprint was left. (In the murder room)
2) Because we know when the handprint was left. (After the blood came out)
3) Because we know the handprint wasn't lab contamination.
4) Because we know the handprint wasn't lab contamination.
5) Because we know the handprint wasn't placed there accidentally.
6) Because we know the handprint wasn't placed there deliberately.

Bloody handprints convict.
Random LCN DNA almost never convicts by itself.

DNA is the modern equivalent of fingerprints.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

"At that time was hashish smoked" deserves a one wordanswer. It's either yes or no.
amanda instead chooses to say |once in a while with friends".

Are you really this confused? She did answer "yes." You are quoting her answer to a different question.

 

[loverofzion]

What did she lie about?

What part do you think Amanda Knox played in the murder?

The lies are too numerous and too convoluted to answer in one post.

For starters though, she lied about where she had been the night of the murder.
She changed her alibi 3x, as did raf.

And that's only for starters.

 

[katy_did]

Raffaele's landlord kept an inventory.

Ergo Raffaele could not simply dispose of the knife and replace it with a new one without running the risk that his landlord would notice the change and alert the police.

Did the inventory not just say 'two large knives' (or something similarly vague)? If they'd wanted, they could easily have replaced it; if not, Raffaele could have said the knife broke some months back (it was a cheap knife) and he hadn't gotten around to replacing it, especially as I believe he said he used his own knives for cooking anyway.

The police would've been left with a missing kitchen knife which was too large to have made a knife print left at the scene, and too large to have made at least one of the victim's wounds. In other words, there would have been nothing whatsoever to link the missing knife with the crime.

The risks associated with keeping the knife were so much higher than the risks associated with getting rid of it that it makes absolutely no sense for them to have kept it just because it was on the landlord's inventory. I think that's a very weak reason to explain their keeping it.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Raffaele's landlord kept an inventory.

Ergo Raffaele could not simply dispose of the knife and replace it with a new one without running the risk that his landlord would notice the change and alert the police.

This is for real?

What is your source on this?

Was it really established that his landlord used to drop in for unannounced cutlery counting with a list? What a landlord! Maybe he used to schedule such list checks on weekly basis and the next search was coming on Nov 2?

Ergo?

 

[treehorn]

Are you really this confused? She did answer "yes." You are quoting her answer to a different question.

No she didn't.

Per usual, Knox created confusion.

This is what liars seek to do.

Innocent people have noting to conceal, as a result they seek to establish clarity, not confusion.

You'd know this if you'd ever spent any time representing clients facing criminal charges.

 

[Justinian2]

Do you ever listen?
It would have had to be raf's hand on her BRA not on her back for the DNA to possilby appear. As far as we know it doesn't travel through her clohtes by his touch.As for Rudy's print being a far more sure thing than raf's DNA, pray tell us why that is.

Remember that I was just listing possibilites and this was one. I didn't even say that this was the most probable of the possibilities. However, for a theory to be proved ALL the possible exceptions to the theory need to be accounted for. Otherwise the theory hasn't been proved.

Haven't you ever seen a woman with a low back-cut sweater with the bra exposed? A sneeze or similar could deposit DNA on the back of the bra.

Other possibilities are semen in the wash water. There are probably dozens of possible methods LCN DNA could be deposited.

The most likely are lab contamination or contamination while lying on the floor for days.

However, the fact that the DNA was on the clasp sounds like the deliberate act of a subordinate following the instructions of his supervisor.

The fact I want to impress upon you is ALL the possibilities have to be accounted for.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

cannabis is in a class by itself

I am asking why you think describing marijuana by its medical definition and not its legal one is significant in this case.

loverofzion,

Treehorn said that he was using the term narcotic in its legal, rather than its medical, meaning. Saying that marijuana is legally a narcotic is misleading at best, untrue at worst. Nothing I have uncovered about Italian drug laws suggests that marijuana is classed as a narcotic. From a previous cite, "Cannabis and cannabis products are classified as a Schedule II drug under Italian law."

Note that schedule II consists solely of cannabis.

Italy - Six Classes.
I opium, cocaine, hallucinogens, some amphetamines
II cannabis
III barbiturates
IV medicinal substances
V preparations of substances mentioned at I to III
VI antidepressants, stimulants

Do you have a citation that says otherwise?

 

[loverofzion]

Did the inventory not just say 'two large knives' (or something similarly vague)? If they'd wanted, they could easily have replaced it; if not, Raffaele could have said the knife broke some months back (it was a cheap knife) and he hadn't gotten around to replacing it, especially as I believe he said he used his own knives for cooking anyway.

The police would've been left with a missing kitchen knife which was too large to have made a knife print left at the scene, and too large to have made at least one of the victim's wounds. In other words, there would have been nothing whatsoever to link the missing knife with the crime.

The risks associated with keeping the knife were so much higher than the risks associated with getting rid of it that it makes absolutely no sense for them to have kept it just because it was on the landlord's inventory. I think that's a very weak reason to explain their keeping it.

"Too large to have made at least one of the victim's wounds"?
So that means it still did the job nicely with the other wounds.

And yes, it is possible that in a rented apartment with only a few knives, the landlord would have been up on one missing.

 

[Chris C]

DNA is the modern equivalent of fingerprints.

Unlike Fingerprints, dna can be transferred or contaminated. If your fingerprints are in blood, you made them. They were not transferred.

 

[loverofzion]

loverofzion,

Treehorn said that he was using the term narcotic in its legal, rather than its medical, meaning. Saying that marijuana is legally a narcotic is misleading at best, untrue at worst. Nothing I have uncovered about Italian drug laws suggests that marijuana is classed as a narcotic. From a previous cite, "Cannabis and cannabis products are classified as a Schedule II drug under Italian law."

Note that schedule II consists solely of cannabis.

Italy - Six Classes.
I opium, cocaine, hallucinogens, some amphetamines
II cannabis
III barbiturates
IV medicinal substances
V preparations of substances mentioned at I to III
VI antidepressants, stimulants

Do you have a citation that says otherwise?

Fact is, amanda and raf were getting stoned and sheused this to try to excuse their faulty memories. Narcotic or not, this is total tripe.
Ask anyone who has ever smoked a joint.
You just don't forget everything you ever knew.

 

[LondonJohn]

Well by Merdith's reply and the fact that she did not invite amanda nor respond in the affirmative to her invitation, it would appear Merdith preferred spending her time with her other friends.
Who all agreed with this assessment of the relations between the two girls.

(sigh.....)

Well, first off, this post was in reply to your statement that:

It is known that Merdith (sic) chose not to respond to amanda's invite to spend Halloween night together.

So, in fact, it's not "known" that Meredith "chose not to respond". Instead (if "Darkness Descending" is to be believed) Meredith's replies were normal and perfectly civil.

Secondly, you're really grasping at straws with your follow-up suggestions (notwithstanding the fact that you've seemingly chosen to forget your initial confidence that Meredith had ignored Knox's texts - by which I presume you meant to imply that Meredith was clearly rebuffing Knox, and that therefore Meredith had somehow "fallen out" with Knox). If Meredith was going to a friend's house for dinner, it wasn't her place to be inviting Meredith to the dinner as well. And she apparently texted that they were going to be in Le Chic later on (which of course would be known to Meredith as Knox's workplace and regular hang-out - don't you think they might have chosen to go somewhere different if Meredith wanted to avoid Knox?), and that "maybe" they would hook up there.

If you choose to interpret all that as Meredith preferring to spend time with her other friends, then I think you're completely wrong. Do you think Meredith should have abandoned her plans with other friends the moment Knox texted her? A friend of mine phoned me on the day before Christmas Eve and asked if I wanted to go out for a few drinks that evening. I already had plans to go out with some work colleagues, and so I told him that I therefore couldn't go out with him. That doesn't mean that I "preferred" to go out with my work colleagues to going out with him - it just means that I'd made other plans which I didn't want to break.

And your last sentence makes little sense. But if it means what I think it means, then it's untrue as well.

 

[loverofzion]

Remember that I was just listing possibilites and this was one. I didn't even say that this was the most probable of the possibilities. However, for a theory to be proved ALL the possible exceptions to the theory need to be accounted for. Otherwise the theory hasn't been proved.

Haven't you ever seen a woman with a low back-cut sweater with the bra exposed? A sneeze or similar could deposit DNA on the back of the bra.

Other possibilities are semen in the wash water. There are probably dozens of possible methods LCN DNA could be deposited.

The most likely are lab contamination or contamination while lying on the floor for days.

However, the fact that the DNA was on the clasp sounds like the deliberate act of a subordinate following the instructions of his supervisor.

The fact I want to impress upon you is ALL the possibilities have to be accounted for.

Really Justinian, it sounds like you have too much time on your hands.

So now we have raf rubbing his hands on Meredith's low cut back and transferring his DNA to her bra clasp.

Can you do a little better.

 

[katy_did]

"Too large to have made at least one of the victim's wounds"?
So that means it still did the job nicely with the other wounds.

In the sense that any knife with a non-serrated blade could have made the other wound/s, then sure. Doesn't exactly narrow things down to this knife in particular though, does it?

And yes, it is possible that in a rented apartment with only a few knives, the landlord would have been up on one missing.

I really, highly doubt that. In my experience, if you break something in a rented apartment, you just replace it before you move out and there are no questions asked. Especially if that 'something' is a cheap plastic kitchen knife. I really doubt the landlord came round every month to do a spot check on whether the cutlery was of the same brand as it was the previous month.

As I said before: the argument that they kept the knife because it was on the landlord's inventory (in very vague terms) is extremely weak. In that situation the obvious thing would be to get rid of the knife first, and worry about the landlord later; not replace the knife in the drawer for future vegetable chopping use.

ETA: I mean, can you imagine the conversation?

Amanda: So Raf, I was thinking, once you've finished making that playlist, we're gonna have to get rid of all the evidence. How about you take our bloody clothes and shoes, your pocket knife, the kitchen knife and the detachable mop head and dump it all somewhere?

Raffaele: OK sure, but give me a minute, this is a great song. Oh but wait, I just had a thought - that kitchen knife's on the flat inventory! &*@&$*@#$%^@!!! What are we gonna do?

Amanda: Well obviously we can't get rid of it then. The landlord's coming round to do your monthly spot cutlery inspection on Monday too, remember? How about I just give it a wipe and put it back in the drawer? No one'll ever know.

Raffaele: Yeah, good idea. Plus, we'll need it for cooking tomorrow anyway. I was thinking something with onions.

I mean, really?

 

[loverofzion]

(sigh.....)

Well, first off, this post was in reply to your statement that:

It is known that Merdith (sic) chose not to respond to amanda's invite to spend Halloween night together.

So, in fact, it's not "known" that Meredith "chose not to respond". Instead (if "Darkness Descending" is to be believed) Meredith's replies were normal and perfectly civil.

Secondly, you're really grasping at straws with your follow-up suggestions (notwithstanding the fact that you've seemingly chosen to forget your initial confidence that Meredith had ignored Knox's texts - by which I presume you meant to imply that Meredith was clearly rebuffing Knox, and that therefore Meredith had somehow "fallen out" with Knox). If Meredith was going to a friend's house for dinner, it wasn't her place to be inviting Meredith to the dinner as well. And she apparently texted that they were going to be in Le Chic later on (which of course would be known to Meredith as Knox's workplace and regular hang-out - don't you think they might have chosen to go somewhere different if Meredith wanted to avoid Knox?), and that "maybe" they would hook up there.

If you choose to interpret all that as Meredith preferring to spend time with her other friends, then I think you're completely wrong. Do you think Meredith should have abandoned her plans with other friends the moment Knox texted her? A friend of mine phoned me on the day before Christmas Eve and asked if I wanted to go out for a few drinks that evening. I already had plans to go out with some work colleagues, and so I told him that I therefore couldn't go out with him. That doesn't mean that I "preferred" to go out with my work colleagues to going out with him - it just means that I'd made other plans which I didn't want to break.

And your last sentence makes little sense. But if it means what I think it means, then it's untrue as well.

Meredith could easily have invited amanda along with her friends IF indeed she felt friendly toward amanda.
But according to Merdith's friends, she did not.

 

[Kaosium]

The lies are too numerous and too convoluted to answer in one post.

For starters though, she lied about where she had been the night of the murder.
She changed her alibi 3x, as did raf.

I think aggressive interrogators under the sway of faulty data used coercive methods to change their alibis to fit their theory of Patrick as the murderer, but both Amanda and Raffaele realized soon after they'd been lied to. That's really only one change, and one quickly rectified.

What would you say if the police insisted you were somewhere you weren't, that they had hard evidence proving it, and you'd better stop 'lying' about not leaving unless you want to do thirty years? The first thirty times you might stick to your memories, but if they convinced you they could be false, perhaps due to smoking hash?

Over and over, for hours.

 

[LondonJohn]

Really Justinian, it sounds like you have too much time on your hands.

So now we have raf rubbing his hands on Meredith's low cut back and transferring his DNA to her bra clasp.

Can you do a little better.

Apart from your first sentence, I'd tend to agree with you here.

I think that trying to pursue a theory based upon bra-sharing or friendly back-rubbing is of little worth. I can't think of a reasonable way in which either of these activities could have ended up with Sollecito's DNA being on the hook of the bra clasp.

Personally, if the DNA can be correctly shown to be Sollecito's, then I think the bra clasp was contaminated either at the scene or in the lab. I certainly don't think there's any way in which his DNA could have found its way onto the small metal hook of the bra clasp during the removal of the bra from Meredith's torso - otherwise his DNA would almost certainly also be present on the material surrounding the clasp.

 

[Katody Matrass]

expelliarmus

No she didn't.

Per usual, Knox created confusion.

This is what liars seek to do.

Innocent people have noting to conceal, as a result they seek to establish clarity, not confusion.

Sorry, treehorn but now you're just conjuring reality away.

You'd know this if you'd ever spent any time representing clients facing criminal charges.

It seems you claim to be a lawyer. Sorry but it's quite obvious that you're not. No amount of pompous Latin can change it It's funny that you not only expressed confusion about why Pacelli circles around and is unable to ask a straight question but you (apparently unconsciously) projected that evasiveness on Amanda.

Pacelli is circling around and Amanda's answers are straight:

CP: On the occasion of this party, Miss, was hashish smoked?

AK: There was a spinello that was smoked, yes.

CP: At that time, in October 2007, did you use drugs?

AK: Every once in a while with friends.

CP: Which substances were they?

AK: Marijuana.​

 

[Chris C]

loverofzion,

Treehorn said that he was using the term narcotic in its legal, rather than its medical, meaning. Saying that marijuana is legally a narcotic is misleading at best, untrue at worst. Nothing I have uncovered about Italian drug laws suggests that marijuana is classed as a narcotic. From a previous cite, "Cannabis and cannabis products are classified as a Schedule II drug under Italian law."

Note that schedule II consists solely of cannabis.

Italy - Six Classes.
I opium, cocaine, hallucinogens, some amphetamines
II cannabis
III barbiturates
IV medicinal substances
V preparations of substances mentioned at I to III
VI antidepressants, stimulants

Do you have a citation that says otherwise?

The problem with using the word Narcotics is you either use it nonspecific or specific.
If you get specific then it refers to psychoactive drugs.
When you get non specific it can refer to 2 things:
1. Illegal or illegally obtained drugs.
2. Or It can refer to all drugs.

PS. Psychoactive drugs are listed in 3 categories.
1. Stimulants: Example; Caffeine and Nicotine
2. Depressant: Example; Alcohol and Opioids
3. Hallucinogens: Example; LSD

THC falls into all 3 of those groups.

 

[komponisto]

This leads to semantics. I would concede the point. One may fairly describe someone who has been convicted of murder as a "convicted murderer."

"Convicted murderer" is not the same as "murderer".

The point is not actually a semantic one (and I'll note that I was not the one to introduce the phrase "by definition" into this discussion). There are lots of people (lionking being an example) who seem unable to understand the idea that it is possible to disagree with a court decision, or at least seem to think there is something "inappropriate" about doing so. (PMF-watchers may recall that I was banned from that forum after suggesting that my opinion on whether Knox and Sollecito were likely to be acquitted at the appeal might be distinct from my opinion on whether they are innocent of the crime; this was considered unpardonable "arrogance" on my part.) In insisting that court decisions somehow necessarily settle an issue of fact, people confuse social authority with rational evidence -- a confusion that desperately needs to be cleared up.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I can support it.

Then be a bit altruistic and do it for the benefit of all the others

 

[lionking]

confuse social authority with rational evidence[/URL] -- a confusion that desperately needs to be cleared up.

So if courts don't decide guilt or innocence, who or what does?

 

[komponisto]

Knox got away with murder (no pun intended) when she took the stand.


"Every once in a while with friends" is affirmative while, at one and the same time, she's allowed to remain equivocal on the crux of the issue: "Did she smoke drugs at that party with Rudy?"

That was not the question she was asked. Pacelli's question, in the original Italian (unfortunately the video seems to have been removed from YouTube, so you'll have to get your PMF friends to verify this) was:

Lei faceva uso di sostanze stupefacenti?

That's faceva, the imperfect tense, which indicates habitual or continuous action, not the preterite (fece) or perfect (ha fatto), which would more likely have been used had the speaker been asking specifically about a particular occasion. The question, as posed, means roughly, "were you in the habit of using mind-altering substances?"

 

[komponisto]

So if courts don't decide guilt or innocence, who or what does?

The evidence itself.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It has negative connotations, especially when paired with issues of race.
If one means by that term that the person is unemployed, well then I believe Curt Knox and Chris Mellas would then also be drifters.

I believe it's an established guilter talking point that people who believe Rudy Guede to be guilty and Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to be innocent do so out of racism, which makes them bad people.

The claimed proof of racism on the part of pro-innocent speakers is their use of terms like "creepy drifter" to describe Rudy Guede, which might not seem racist on the surface, but the backup guilter talking point is that terms like "creepy drifter" are code for racist terms.

So when I say "Rudy Guede was an unemployed man with no obvious means of support, linked by multiple reliable reports to crimes involving second-storey break-ins by means of a hurled rock, known to carry a knife while committing his crimes" what they take me to really mean is "Rudy was black and thus a criminal".

Or when I say "Amanda Knox was by all pre-trial accounts an entirely normal and well-liked person with no signs of violent, anti-social behaviour, as was Raffaele Sollecito" what they take me to mean is "They are of the master race and above the law! Heil Hitler!".

It's a matched set with the guilters' love affair with the second-hand hearsay published by Mudede ("And never retracted! So it's true!") that Amanda told a Jewish co-worker that "my people killed your people", and the photograph of Amanda horsing around in a museum which, in guilters' minds, transformed itself into a Holocaust memorial.

So if you think the Massei narrative is a load of old cobblers then probably you are secretly a racist, anti-semitic bigot. Apparently.

 

[lionking]

The evidence itself.

Who judges the evidence?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Gary Leiterman and the murder of Jane Mixer

So if courts don't decide guilt or innocence, who or what does?

lionking,

Consider the conviction of Gary Leiterman. His DNA was found on the pantyhose of the deceased, Jane Mixer. Case closed? So was the DNA of John Ruelas, who was four years old at the time and living in a city 40 miles away. On the other hand, little if any DNA from Mixer herself was found on the pantyhose. A number of DNA experts, including Dr. Theodore Kessis, have pointed out some of the flaws in the case. I think he is innocent*, although I am not holding my breath waiting for the authorities in Michigan to change its mind.
*and that both Leiterman's and Ruelas's DNA arrived on the pantyhose from contamination

 

[treehorn]

Then be a bit altruistic and do it for the benefit of all the others

Translation of the Court's judgment, page 375:

"The owner [of Sollecito's apartment]...would have been able to remember [the knife's]...presence and note the absence of this utensil, and this circumstance would have been able to constitute a trace, an invertigative hypothesis upon which...Sollecito may have been called in to supply an explanation for...opportune to carry the knife back ...its cleaning would have [in theory] ensured...non-traceability..."



First Kevin, then John, now you...

Have any of the pro-Knox set bothered to read the Court's judgment?!

 

[lionking]

lionking,

Consider the conviction of Gary Leiterman. His DNA was found on the pantyhose of the deceased, Jane Mixer. Case closed? So was the DNA of John Ruelas, who was four years old at the time and living in a city 40 miles away. On the other hand, little if any DNA from Mixer herself was found on the pantyhose. A number of DNA experts, including Dr. Theodore Kessis, have pointed out some of the flaws in the case. I think he is innocent, although I am not holding my breath waiting for the authorities in Michigan to change its mind.

You still haven't answered my question. Komponisto said that courts don't settle issues of fact (obviously in the context of a criminal trial). Who or what does?

 

[komponisto]

Have any of the pro-Knox set bothered to read the Court's judgment?!

I have. (In fact I read the original document itself, not a translation.)

 

[komponisto]

Who judges the evidence?

Whoever it is that is trying to arrive at a belief, obviously.

 

[treehorn]

So if you think the Massei narrative is a load of old cobblers...

You should read it some time. Carefully.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Knox got away with murder (no pun intended) when she took the stand.

Anyone trained in the common law would have found it excruciating to watch the way that Knox was allowed to avoid providing direct answers to the questions put.

In this regard, the Italian civil law tradition is a mystery to me.

Knox rarely, if ever, gives a straightforward answer or explanation on the tough questions.

Just look at the way she answers a question clearly aimed at establishing the fact that she smoke dope during one of Rudy's visits to the cottage:

After establishing that she'd been at the cottage 'party' with Rudy in October, Knox is asked about the details of that party:

CP: On the occasion of this party, Miss, was hashish smoked?

AK: There was a spinello that was smoked, yes.

CP: At that time, in October 2007, did you use drugs?

AK: Every once in a while with friends.

[emphasis added]

From Perugia Murder File

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16


"Every once in a while with friends" is affirmative while, at one and the same time, she's allowed to remain equivocal on the crux of the issue: "Did she smoke drugs at that party with Rudy?"

She'd never get away with that in a US courtroom. Ever.

That line of questions would have only been the tip o' the proverbial iceberg. I assure you.

I'm amazed that the pro-Knox supporters can behold evasive and incomplete answers of this kind only to turn around an conclude that Knox is not being deliberately deceptive.

I had the vague idea you said you knew something about the law, but exactly what it was has slipped my mind.

Now there's a legal maxim that you should never ask a question of a witness that you don't know the answer to. I wonder if you've ever heard of it? Maybe not. Anyway, it's occasionally misinterpreted by people who don't know much about the law as a general rule of conduct in a discussion, but a moment's thought would show that would be very silly. You can't learn without asking questions.

It's a specific tactic for risk-averse cross-examination in a court. The idea is that if you ask a question which you do not know the answer to, two bad things can happen. One, the witness can lie to you and get away with it. Two, the witness can give an answer that you do not wish the court to hear and which will limit your ability to spin the case your way.

The reality is that despite pious promises on the part of the witness that they will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the cross-examination process is in fact a game where the lawyer uses the witness as a mouthpiece to deliver a carefully-chosen series of statements to the court that paint a picture that the lawyer wants the court to see. The "art of cross-examination" is in part the art of creating illusions by omitting important and relevant information.

If you didn't know that then I guess you could read that exchange as Amanda running rings around the interrogating lawyer. However any familiarity at all with courtroom processes would have let you read the exchange correctly.

The interrogating lawyer, in all likelihood, knows only that Amanda was at a party with Rudy where marijuana was used, and that Amanda sometimes used marijuana. The lawyer wants those two facts on the record and asks exactly those questions.

The lawyer might well think that Amanda shared drugs with Rudy for all we know, but if the lawyer had proof that this had ever happened then they would have asked directly "Did you ever share drugs with Rudy Guede?". The fact that the lawyer did not ask such a question indicates that the lawyer did not have proof one way or the other about that question.

How the law actually proceeds is a fascinating topic, and one worth studying if you want to understand cases like this. Have you considered one day perhaps studying law or science at a university? I think you could learn a lot that would be relevant to this case.

 

[treehorn]

I have. (In fact I read the original document itself, not a translation.)

Kudos. Very impressive. Which language is your 'native tongue'?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Even IF your reasoning is true, and that it's only "a vanishingly small number of murder cases that friends kill friends", that still says nothing about the fa ts of this case.

Actually it says something very important to a rational person.

The prior probability of the prosecution's theory, that Amanda (a friend), Raffaele (a friend's boyfriend) and Rudy Guede (a creepy local criminal none of them knew beyond one or two chance meetings) ganged up to murder Meredith is extremely low.

It's a zebra hypothesis. An extraordinary claim in need of extraordinary evidence. It's not quite as unlikely as "Wonder Woman, Batman and the Green Lantern did it", but it's far, far more unlikely than "a lover, family member or burglar did it".

A rational person needs extremely compelling evidence before they will believe an extremely unlikely proposition. There needs to be a large body of sound and convincing evidence before a rational thinker will slide from thinking "it is overwhelmingly likely that Rudy Guede did it alone", the rational prior position, to "it is overwhelmingly likely that Rudy Guede, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito teamed up to do it".

The prosecution claimed they had such evidence, but it turns out they were largely making it up or distorting the facts. There was no bleach receipt, the shoe print wasn't Raffaele's, the Harry Potter book was right where it should have been, there was absolutely no evidence of a clean-up, there was absolutely no evidence of a staged break-in, there was no sign of Amanda and Raffaele in the murder room, the bloody footprints were all compatible with Guede and so on and on.

What is left is a collection of weak and suspect evidence insufficient to convince a rational person of a zebra hypothesis.

So it turns out it's really important that the prosecution's theory is incredibly far-fetched from the start.